Universal Basic Income; 'bout time or batshit crazy?

DiogenesTheWiser

Well-Known Member
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2017/04/conversation-basic-income-mess-heres-make-sense.html

I'm on the fence, myself. This is a fundamental shift in how people think about an economy and their place in it.

Discuss;
We are in the so-called "digital age," which has replaced the so-called Nuclear Age of my youth (the 1970s & 1980s). During times of great shifts in the Age or the Era, there's usually economic upheaval. Take, for instance, the prevalence of the automobile, radio, durable goods like refrigerators, and amusement parks of the 1920s. This "modernity" altered social relationships and social value systems as well as render many old economic practices obsolete. Telegram companies were starting to go belly up because people could call one another. Ice houses went belly up because people had refrigeration. Wheelwrights went belly up because people with automobiles no longer needed wagon wheels. Similar with stockyards in the cities that kept folks' horses while in town.

By the Depression of the 1930s, some Americans believed in a Universal Basic Income (UBI). One of whom was Huey P. Long, who advocated the ideas that in the land of plenty (America), every man should live like a king. He promised voters to deliver on a UBI to the tune of $5K annually, and an automobile for every family, along with a radio.

Of course, Long was shot dead before he could run for el presidente, and spent much of his time in the Senate disparaging FDR and drinking way too much. Yet the UBI ideal lived on until WWII set aside the Great Depression that gripped every facet of American life for 12 to 14 years. Why?

Americans adapted, gradually, to the economic changes. Wheelwrights might have had hard times, but their kids knew not to follow in their dad's footsteps. Similarly, the youth today realize that a lot of jobs are obsolete. Even our ways of educating people are no longer valid in a digital age when information is free flowing. There's not one iota of need to teach the basic skills in school any more. Other than literacy, there's no need for math, algebra, civics, geometry, economics, history, or literature. Yet schools go on teaching the stuff that's available to anyone interested via the world wide web, which folks can access on their phones.

What the future generation will concentrate on is expanding the digital in the digital age. The new high income jobs will be centered around servicing the internet. So coding is what schools should be teaching. That along with basic medical-related skills are the core skill sets that future employees will need. Coding to keep the digital going and evolving, and medical skills to keep 100 year olds alive and comfortable (because we're living longer).

Society will adapt to the digital age, and economically speaking, whole new professions will eventually be created. Some of the same ol, same ol will persist, however. The vast majority of jobs will be low-paying, and only available to folks who don't know how to code and don't want to learn. Only a handful of folks will control the digital flow of information, and they'll be the like the robber barons of 140 years, or the Trumps of today. In short, in the new economy, the poor will get poorer and the wealthy will figure out ways to sustain that.
 

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
If you make more than $30,000, you earn more than 53.2% of Americans
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/05/income-inequality-crisis_n_4221012.html
I can't figure out what point you are trying to make. The article you quote is impenetrable too. First, it talks about wage earners and the median wage and then talks about percentage of all Americans. Since children don't (legally) work, how many do you think earn a wage? But children are Americans, Were children included in their statistical breakdown? They don't say. It seems as if the reporter didn't understand what they are talking about.

Some related statistics:
Per capita income = GDP/ total population = $56,000 (2015)
Personal income = How much a person -- the wage earner -- makes in a year
median personal income = the amount at which 50% of wage earners make less and 50% make more = $38,000 (2016)
https://dqydj.com/income-percentile-calculator/
Household income = The total incomes of every resident (over 15) of a house
Median household income = the amount at which 50% of households make less and 50% make more = $56,000 (2016)

Amounts listed for per capita income and median household income were lifted from Wikipedia articles.

I can't recall what you were trying to say.
 
Last edited:

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
If you make more than $30,000, you earn more than 53.2% of Americans
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/05/income-inequality-crisis_n_4221012.html
I can't figure out what point you are trying to make. The article you quote is impenetrable too. First, it talks about wage earners and the median wage and then talks about percentage of all Americans. Since children don't (legally) work, how many do you think earn a wage? But children are Americans, Were children included in their statistical breakdown? They don't say. It seems as if the reporter didn't understand what they are talking about.

Some related statistics:
Per capita income = GDP/ total population = $56,000 (2015)
Personal income = How much a person -- the wage earner -- makes in a year
median personal income = the amount at which 50% of wage earners make less and 50% make more = $38,000 (2016)
https://dqydj.com/income-percentile-calculator/
Household income = The total incomes of every resident (over 15) of a house
Median household income = the amount at which 50% of households make less and 50% make more = $56,000 (2016)

Amounts listed for per capita income and median household income were lifted from Wikipedia articles.

I can't recall what you were trying to say.
@Fogdog, your numbers are a bit optimistic, even though they're drawn from otherwise reputable sources. The average American income is a lot higher than the 50th percentile or median wage. GDP per capita is much higher because it shows the amount skimmed off average wages by management, owners and financial institutions.

What did you not understand? His stats are straightforward and the article was not murky.

His point is that there's a lot of people in America struggling to get by, even many who work full time.

I agree with his implied point that they don't make enough for their time and effort.
 

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Your numbers are Injustice, even though they're weird from otherwise reputable sources. The average American income is a lot higher than the 50th percentile or median wage. GDP per capita is much higher because it shows the amount skimmed off average wages by management, owners and financial institutions.

What did you not understand? His stats are straightforward and the article was not murky.

His point is that there's a lot of people in America struggling to get by, even many who work full time.

I agree with his implied point that they don't make enough for their time and effort.
I explained my confusion on the stats in that article. It's not the first time that I was confused about a detail that everybody else seemed to think made sense. And it's not important.

I listed the various stats used by the government and media because nobody seems to know which number they are quoting. I still don't know which stat that huffpo article was using.

So, you named something different than I listed. How is the "average American income" calculated? Is it the same as per capita GDP or something else?
 

SneekyNinja

Well-Known Member
I explained my confusion on the stats in that article. It's not the first time that I was confused about a detail that everybody else seemed to think made sense. And it's not important.

I listed the various stats used by the government and media because nobody seems to know which number they are quoting. I still don't know which stat that huffpo article was using.
So their citation had no citation?

That's pretty weak stuff.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Didn't watch the Leroy vid....that wasn't even bait yet you managed to put it on a hook, tie it to my rod, swallow it and take off.
Oh well I got some watermalone to keep me clean.

if i were you i would have quit after "flapping his purple lips" and "mulatto" and "dindu nuffin", but you just had to keep going with your whole "black people and watermelon" thing.

at least you prove that racists are unintelligent, unsuccessful, trailer dwelling fucktard losers.
 

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
So their citation had no citation?

That's pretty weak stuff.
It's not the citation its the wording that I find confusing.

It all starts well with the author talking about median wages. Well and good. Then he says

-If you make more than $10,000, you earn more than 24.2% of Americans, or 37 million people.

If, instead of "Americans", the author had said "US wage earners", he would have made sense. Americans, I would think implies everybody, from a 1 month old to a 100 year old. Wage earner or not, we are all Americans. But I think the author meant income or wage earner instead. And it has esh confused too. Or maybe not. I don't know.
 

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
It's not the citation its the wording that I find confusing.

It all starts well with the author talking about median wages. Well and good. Then he says

-If you make more than $10,000, you earn more than 24.2% of Americans, or 37 million people.

If, instead of "Americans", the author had said "US wage earners", he would have made sense. Americans, I would think implies everybody, from a 1 month old to a 100 year old. Wage earner or not, we are all Americans. But I think the author meant income or wage earner instead. And it has esh confused too. Or maybe not. I don't know.
Wage earners is how I interpreted it.

That said, the main point is that it's very, very meagre.
 

twostrokenut

Well-Known Member
No, I literally pointed out the actual dictionary definition, something you have tried and failed to do on more than one occasion. Your first statement is also incorrect, it is not simply an increase in the money supply which causes inflation, it is an increase in the supply with no corresponding increase in productivity which causes inflation. Conversely, to not increase the money supply when productivity increases is similar to an austerity measure, but there is a more specific name for it which is currently escaping me.
Deflation?
Screenshot_20170628-195252.png
 

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
We are in the so-called "digital age," which has replaced the so-called Nuclear Age of my youth...
Not that I am reacting to your overall argument, just this snip. Instead of a Westerncentric social identifier for the "age", I posit the age known as anthropocene, as our "civilization" has been dubbed by the global scientific community.

"Everything is better digital..." ~eager proctologist
 

twostrokenut

Well-Known Member
if i were you i would have quit after "flapping his purple lips" and "mulatto" and "dindu nuffin", but you just had to keep going with your whole "black people and watermelon" thing.

at least you prove that racists are unintelligent, unsuccessful, trailer dwelling fucktard losers.
it's not even bait or a hook, youre just wrapping line around your neck and trying to attach it to me.

it's very pathetic and entertaining.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
it's not even bait or a hook, youre just wrapping line around your neck and trying to attach it to me.

it's very pathetic and entertaining.
post some more overtly racist memes and then tell me all about how i'm the one making a fool of myself, you neo-nazi retard.
 
Top